On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 09:36:11PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > I agree that the DDL behaviour is wrong and should be fixed. Thank you > for championing that alternative view. > > Swapping based upon names only works and is very flexible, much more so > than EXCHANGE could be. > > A separate utility might be worth it, but the feature set of that should > be defined in terms of correctly-working DDL behaviour. It's possible > that no further requirement exists. I remove my own patch from > consideration for this release. > > I'll review your patch and commit it, problems or objections excepted. I > haven't looked at it in any detail.
Thanks. I wouldn't be very surprised if that patch is even the wrong way to achieve these semantics, but it's great that we're on the same page as to which semantics they are. > Having said that, writing the patch did nothing to convince me this was > the correct approach. Reviews should be reviews, they are not an > opportunity to provide your own alternate version of a patch. That just > confuses things and creates a competitive, not a cooperative > environment. Authors do need to listen to reviewers, so I hope I'm > demonstrating that here. Understood. I can see now that posting a second code patch, however framed, in the same thread creates a presumption of aggression that is difficult to dispel. I will have a lot to think about before doing that again. Thanks for giving this discussion, which started poorly due to my actions, a second chance. nm -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers